To be fair to Peterson, he doesn’t want to legislate morality itself. He just wants to “enforce” monogamy in legal terms by eliminating no-fault divorce and by making divorce in general more difficult (and ruinous if one partner is proven to have cheated) – at least for heterosexual couples.* The dreaded state will stay out of the divorce game, but will continue to participate in the marriage game by bestowing benefits that promote it.
Sure, couples that have grown apart or who’ve grown to hate each-other will have to stay together, but somehow (combined with a return to traditional family values) it will also lead to socially maladjusted male losers (e.g. incels, MRAs) having a greater chance to bestow their brilliance and wonderfulness upon a woman due to a larger supply of said “commodity”.
[* he sidesteps the question of gay marriage by saying he opposes it in its current form because it’s put forward by “cultural Marxists”, statists, and leftists who don’t think about the chilllddddrennnn]
That’s why I said also any perceptions of the concept; our society all too often conflates human sexual behavior (or the lack thereof) with “morals.”
The methodology of trying to control the behavior of the masses is irrelevant, as it still comes down to trying to exert control.
Yeah… any such attempt to force unhappy couples to stay together would likely only end up with higher rates of domestic violence and spousal homicide, methinks.
So some people would like to think, anyway. It’s just not possible to “make” anyone else want you or to force someone to love you; that’s not how humans work.
I’d imagine that Jordaddy cares as much about those all-too-likely outcomes as a typical anti-choicer cares about what happens to a child once it leaves the birth canal. The important thing in both cases is that the woman is regarded as chattel and that her body is controlled.
Not understanding how humans work is one of the key contributing factors to the making of an incel (or an MRA, or Libertarians, etc.)
That’s highly problematic, because like Dirk Gently says, it’s all connected.
The importance of human birth is greatly diminished if the quality of life that follows is abhorrent. In the same vein, the overall value of marriage depreciates if the couple in question are not compatible, for whatever reasons.
I don’t know how many times I can say that I think it makes perfect sense to not watch a video on a subject you’ve already made your mind up about because you just don’t think it will add anything new. It feels like you don’t think I understand the position you are taking on watching the video when I’ve said in every one of my posts that I support it. What I don’t understand is choosing both to not watch the video and to talk about how you didn’t watch it in a thread about the video, inviting further discussion of this thing that isn’t worth your time.
But as I said in my first response to you, I don’t even think the statement you quoted misrepresents Peterson’s views, it just puts them in a mean/uncharitable way. The legislation Peterson opposed can be found here:
It replaces four places in Canadian law that list prohibited grounds for discrimination by adding “gender identity or expression” to the list. It replaced:
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered
with
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered
That is all. This statement is entirely, 100% factual:
Peterson publicly advanced the position that a bill that would add “gender identity or expression” to the list of classes protected against discrimination would result in an unacceptable loss of individual freedom.
It’s incomplete but of course it’s incomplete. It’s one sentence. There is more to say about the issue than one sentence can fit.
For me these things convey the same underlying content:
Claim from Video
Factual Statement
[Peterson sounded] the alarm about how
Peterson publicly advanced the position that
protecting transgender people under Canadian human rights law
a bill that would add “gender identity or expression” to the list of classes protected against discrimination
shall surely
would
lead to Stalinism
result in an unacceptable loss of individual freedom
I’d liken it to start a pro-creationism video with, “Evolution is the ridiculous idea that somehow because children look like their parents, an ape can turn into a human.” Essentially factual but presenting it in a way to make it sound absurd because they are against it.
That’s kind of silly. It’s either malicious or it isn’t. You can do nearly anything with malice.
Giving Peterson the benefit of the doubt here (which I don’t, but for the sake of argument), this is why I hate it when people argue from ideology instead of from real-world effects. No-fault divorce allows married people to escape abused spouses. That is basically its entire function. If someone is going to research monogamous marriage to find out it reduces violence*, one might research no-fault divorce to see what it resulted in.
* That is, a model where each man gets to own one woman seems to reduce violence compared to a model where some men get to own many women and many men get to own no women. Which is no surprise because extreme economic inequality (which is what a different number of wives is under this circumstance) leads to violence. I’m totally against weird Christian/Mormon groups that practice modern day polygamy, but there’s nothing even remotely similar between that and polyamory where no one owns anyone and (if my friends are any indication) everyone gets laid more.
You bet your bippy it is. And what does the good doctor with so many firm opinions have to say about legal abortion? Well, not wanting to be so firm on this issue he gets a bit wishy-washy…
There so much to unpack in that series of tweets besides what you correctly noted:
Treating women as “disposable sex objects” is an incredibly weird way to say “not paying child support”. There are all kinds of ways to treat women as disposable objects that do not result in children or in being “enslaved” by the state.
He says that men who have chosen “state slavery” via “rebellion and failure” have done so because women have “usurped” men. That is de facto sexism.
The man who would enforce monagamy refers to wives and children as tyranny. Go figure.
Casual sex does not result in “state or family tyranny” where birth control is available, and which he is against.
If Peterson were really just talking about not promoting polygamous relationships, which are illegal and rare, then why bother mentioning it all, let alone as factor in male violence?
Well, two reasons. Firstly, there is a lot of discussion on this thread that isn’t specifically about that video. Secondly, I did make sure to note to everyone reading that the video does start out with an outright misrepresentation of Peterson, thus showing its flaws and bias.
That is all. This statement is entirely, 100% factual:
Peterson publicly advanced the position that a bill that would add “gender identity or expression” to the list of classes protected against discrimination would result in an unacceptable loss of individual freedom.
It’s incomplete but of course it’s incomplete. It’s one sentence. There is more to say about the issue than one sentence can fit.
What you’re not considering is error by omission. By omitting the context of Peterson’s position, the viewer totally fails to understand what he’s talking about. So, here’s the fuller context. Bill C-16 added gender identity and gender expression to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Code, and the human rights commissions said that failing to refer to a trans person by their preferred pronouns would qualify as such discrimination. Thus, the bill actually compels speech, and because of this there is a loss of individual freedom. Error by omission is a thing.
That’s kind of silly. It’s either malicious or it isn’t.
That’s my point. It’s not malicious. Not using someone’s pronoun isn’t malicious. The only thing that’s malicious is compelled speech.
Well, it might have. Unless you actually read it. Have you read it, and if you have, can you actually try explaining Peterson’s point without fumbling? Once again, the debate on that pointed ended a bit ago with my flawless knockout of an out of context fumbling against Peterson (as is usual with these). Go ahead and provide the explanation to see if you get what he’s talking about, we’re all eagerly waiting.
While his credentials are impressive, It’s a fluffy op ed with no specific discussion of the specifics of the bill, just statements of public officials about the bill.
Comparing the content of the two articles, Brian Platt appears to have read it in its entirety. Not to mention sought out the opinions of another law school professor who has read it, Brenda Cossman.
“The faculty member who first says that it is now contrary to Bill C-16 fails to understand the reach of the federal human rights act,” said University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman, who has extensively studied the legislation.
Well, yes, but the MRAs to whom he panders have very strong views on paying child support (under the tyrannical whip hand of the state) to women who have not been sufficiently obedient and agreeable to their demands (which they see as merely exercising “responsibility” as head of household).
Will no-one think of the white cisgender males who’ve been denied their just desserts due to feminism and affirmative action and LGBTQ rights? Of course the poor snowflakes are going to “rebel” (by running people over with cars) or end up coerced-speech and alimony-paying slaves of the bad ol’ state.
I can easily see Peterson telling his buddies in the man cave “welp, I’d love to stay but I have to get back to the ol’ ball-and-chain.” Hardy-har-har.
As @Melz2 noted above, it’s all connected, and it adds up to someone who wants to restore the “traditionalist” Patriarchy and all its means of control over women and children.
It’s his M.O., first talking about his opposition to something that’s rare or that societal norms already frown upon and then instantly leaping to the promotion of the opposite extreme as the “logical” conclusion to be drawn.
I’m sure I can’t, but here goes. If I read between the lines, it looks like his point is that promiscuous sex could lead to unintended consequences. In which case: that’s really all he needed to say, and he could’ve/should’ve stopped there. When he compares state-enforced consequences with slavery, and dresses up his words with the “tyranny of wife/child,” though, he just sounds like an asshole. Hence, my comment that “it might actually make him look worse.”
I refer you to the part where I noted it was incomplete because it was a single sentence. You can’t call one sentence a strawman because you feel in contains an omission when you don’t bother to listen to the next sentence and the next. Their explanation does contain every bit of context you just provided. Just not in that sentence.
“Would result in” (and for that matter “shall surely lead to”) strongly signals that the mechanism by which it would lead to that thing is omitted. If I said, “If I go to work I’ll surely get wet,” I’m not lying by omission, I’m very obviously excluding part of the story so that I can include it in a future sentence.
You didn’t want to find out why they were going to get wet on their way to work. And that’s fine. But their statement was basically accurate, it just used a really negative tone.
That said “the bill actually compels speech” is extremely misleading. The bill gives power to the humans rights tribunal to look into cases where people claim they have been discriminated against based on their gender identity or expression. That tribunal doesn’t have the power you are ascribing to it. They can’t drag you into a court and say, “She ‘zir’ or we will put you in prison.”
There’s a very big, bright line between being compelled to speak and being compelled not to say certain things to certain people. There are lots of things we could get ourselves into trouble for saying depending on who we say them to and the context in which we say them. “Compelled speech” makes it sound as if they are going to make you say something you don’t want to say, as opposed to examining individual cases to see whether things you did say constituted harassment.
Here is what the human rights tribunal says about pronouns:
Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education. The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.
Refusing (i.e. after having been asked to do so, not by accident); purposely; and even then only “likely” result in a ruling and only in specifically protected areas.
They go further:
Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.
So no jumping on people for incorrectly using gender neutral pronouns or even for outright refusing to use them and simply referring to people by their names.
Remember that this law was passed in 2016. It’s 2018 now and there’s no wave of people being punished for saying the wrong pronoun. People who thought this was going to happen were, in reality, wrong. There was a case where an employer was ruled against for continuing to pointedly use “he” to refer to a trans woman after being repeatedly told it was offensive. If my employer decided to call me Steve despite me continually correcting them about my name, that would, at some point, rise to the level of harassment (not gender-identity-based harassment, just harassment). Recognizing that employers have a duty to not harass their employees is not “compelling speech”.
